UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 05
Archives
Talk Archives
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General Discussion Archives
General Discussion
JISOR/Halfdan and Mekhan/Tarpenz
Assuming these 4 are all ruled vandalism, are their votes in the election all struck? Would remove 2 additional votes from Stelar, leaving them at 23. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- We'd strike only the second (time-wise) of the votes for each candidate; e.g. JISOR's first two votes would remain, but any by Halfdan Pisket would be struck. Same with Mekhan/Tarpenz — Mekhan's votes remain, but Tarpenz's have been struck. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 12:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I corrected the title for clarity. I have not been connected to the other two accounts. -- 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- JISOR’s final vote was made after both of Pisket’s. If a user has two votes, I believe it would make sense for all votes struck after the first two votes by a single user. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Sister Mary
moved from main page
Blanked User talk:Sniper4625 - normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but they seem quite hostile, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards~ Sniper4625 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I won't need any benefit of doubt, thanks for considering my feelings though. After reading I wanted to have my talk page protected both Sniper and Dragontard came to write on my page - if you don't want any hostile behavior I suggest you fuck off and leave me alone :) I don't even know who the fuck you guys are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:37 June 3 2018.
- Oh right. Ban the fuck outta my account if you feel like it Mr. System-Operator-Boss. I have no problem editing some page to get my message across to people who have a hard time getting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC).
- -- LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now now, there's no need to be rude and start flinging insults. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Might I inquire why you decided the best choice of action to a harmless greeting was a rule-breaking act of vandalism? Quite rude. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Given talk pages are a pretty important element of regulating user behavior without needing to ban anyone the instant they step out of line, I'm really not sure Sister Mary has any interest in learning or following any of the community norms of the wiki. Swissaboo (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per their talk page now they apparently have gotten many such pages deleted, which somewhat confuses me. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Adding onto this, in their protection request they clearly have no interest in bothering with the proper formatting for responding to other users and on their talk page they have placed the nominated for deleting template without any actual nomination for deletion having occurred. I don't know how much of this is actually against wiki RULES (except perhaps that last one?) but they're very clearly running roughshod over the expected standards of behavior. Swissaboo (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure you meant WIKI LAW when you said RULES. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This was exactly the point of having my talk page protected - the horde/jack/whateverzergs can't seem to leave me alone :) Sister Mary (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Jack got run out of town on a rail. Try again. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The reason is pretty simple, and I thought you got the message, but okay, I will clarify for you why = I don't like you :) I will eat my warning with pleasure, don't worry about it! But.. this isn't your first time harrassing people, correct? I like that you feel like you have the upperhand over a guy that made 200+ edits within the last 24 hours, and only vandalized a single page of a user that didn't really go about making "a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki" by trying to trigger me by invading my talk page. Im looking forward as to how this will play out. I will just make another account and keep on editing from there so I didn't lose anything catching myself a warning, other than shifting focus to you ugly bunch of motherfuckers :D Sister Mary (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (See, I use my template just like you want to!)
- Isn't sockpuppeting to avoid wikipunishments in itself a punishable offense? You just keep digging. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- Are you back, Jack? Because you're making the same "alts!" argument he did, and he was similarly disproven. I'm not sure how I put words in your mouth when you said "I will just make another account and keep on editing from there," but well, I did appreciate your attempt to sic Aichon on my compatriot. Too bad it failed. Sniper4625 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- AHHHHHHHH :D I was actually just waiting for someone to pull out the "you're a Yocum" card! Sure dude - let's say im a Jack. I must be a great Jack. I mean, I edited 2 suburbs completely and have been editing the EMRP for 6 months on another account - but sure! YOU GOT ME! :D Im getting the idea that your dick is all so im gonna leave you to play with that! I will be back with another account, to edit another 200+ locations. Meanwhile you guys will have to enjoy yourself being annoying towards someone else! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2018.
Vandalism and a Warning. Don't blank other's pages. I'll serve the warning officially over at the Sister Mary page, but I assume you'll see it here as well. And yes, warnings carry over between accounts. —Aichon— 02:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- So...how does the wiki handle a user rage-reverting their own edits? --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rage reverting? I edited 3 locations due to them being wrong :D Aichon you said something about the parties in question should talk, the rest should shut up. If this doesnt qualify as harrassment I don't know what will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Sounds to me like someone is finally bored of this game and is getting one last laugh out of the community by being as much as a cunt as possible on his way out. Either that or it's his time of month and he's out of pads.---- FoD PK Praise Rando!06:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" A ZOMBIE ANT 00:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
User: Revenant
Now think about it, I have a very distant memory of a user who used to remove all signatures of everyone else on their talk page as a kind of norm, but I can't remember who it was, or if it actually happened. Might have been Iscariot, maybe even Finis. Does this sound right to anybody? A ZOMBIE ANT 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was somebody, but fuck if I remember who it was. I think the logic was that if there was no signature, they could do whatever they wanted to the content and it didn’t count as impersonation? ЯЭV€NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:The Goth Store Owner
*snif* *snif* I smell drama. Is there drama ? OH MA GOSH IS DRAMA!!! --hagnat 21:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The sooner they learn that 90% of this dispute should be on A/Arbitration the sooner I can sleep at night. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a minimum time cases need to stay on the main VB page? Can't this shit just be moved to archives and locked? --KCLZA 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- A/VB is now archived on an annual basis, so it'll be cycled in January 2016. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So quiet
* shuffles around looking for drama to feed on, finds none *
What happened to this place ? --hagnat 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me to drop the DramaLevel. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hagnat spamming an administrative talk page was the excuse I needed to fulfill our VB case quota required by Kevan. To the wikicourt with him at once! -- Spiderzed▋ 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you can update the DramaLevel to the lesser level of drama. This place is so quiet. --hagnat 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Bots Discussion
Return of old, already banned, bots
Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)
Hmm
It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Bots Discussion
Return of old, already banned, bots
Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)
Hmm
It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2010
User:WOOT
Hi, can someone explain to me why this is Vandalism when he was seriously trying to become a sysop? Vandalism requires an edit in bad faith. He may not have done it in good faith like to cure cancer, solve the Palestinian problem, or end world hunger but that doesn't make what he did bad faith. Him and I spoke about it and we decided it was time to truly get him into the sysop community. Y'all just racist. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 09:33, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- Honestly, until you guys brought it up again, I had completely forgotten about the fact that his race has come up in the past as an issue. At the moment, I have no idea what race he is, you are, or pretty much anyone else on here is for that matter, and, to be frank, I don't care to know (in fact, going further, I don't want to know), because it doesn't matter and shouldn't enter into my thinking (and so far has not). In terms of why it's vandalism, he was up for promotion a few months back. What criteria has he worked on or improved since then? None, from what I've seen, so it's hard to treat this as an honest effort to become a sysop. He also has a history of doing this sort of thing, which means he can't get off by saying he didn't know better. Couple that with the precedent of the previous escalations and it's a pretty clear case of vandalism. —Aichon— 09:48, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- He's from Costa Rica, making him Hispanic. Misanthropy has already showed bias against Woot for being Hispanic. Making this a touchy subject when the sysops constantly go after Woot for no reason in particular. Not meeting the criteria to be a sysop shouldn't be vandal worthy since its really a matter of opinion. Simply meeting the requirements does not make someone automatically a sysop, it has more to do with opinion. It is my opinion that you're a basement dwelling, anti-social, asspie faggot who should be as far away from responsibilities as humanly possible. But my opinion doesn't matter, I'm not a sysop. YOU are a sysop, your opinion matters. When you use your opinion in a biased way you abuse your powers. If Woot is punished for trying to be a sysop so that he can clean up the wiki then I will bring miscontribution on every single sysop involved. Because this has nothing to do with rules, its about your dislike for Woot and his ethnicity. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 23:36, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- He's recieved bans for it twice before now, so he has no reason to still be making this form of bids. Saying "Not meeting the criteria to be a sysop shouldn't be vandal worthy" is completely strawman, and has nothing to do with this case. This case, as per the other two I just linked to, is about him spamming admin pages with bids, fully knowing that if he does not attempt to be a member of this community beforehand, he will get a vandal case. Just because he's ignored the past two warnings doesn't give you the right to storm in here and accuse us of misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:50, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- We are making a statement by not conforming to your faggotry. Woot is a freedom fighter like Che Guevera. He will not take part in the system unless its changed. That is why he wants to be a sysop. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 23:53, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- "this has nothing to do with rules, its about your dislike for Woot and his ethnicity." Yes, clearly I disliked WOOT's ethnicity, despite the fact that I didn't know what it was until you just told me (despite the fact that I made it clear I didn't even want to know). Your astounding display of logic has caused me to rethink my shameful ways. I'd respond further, but you're just trolling now, and I'm tired of playing those games. When you want to have a rational conversation, you already know plenty of ways to find me. Use one of them. —Aichon— 02:43, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- He never wasn't trolling... You actually think he cares about WOOT and didn't think he would be banned for putting up an A/PM? -- 03:06, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- He's recieved bans for it twice before now, so he has no reason to still be making this form of bids. Saying "Not meeting the criteria to be a sysop shouldn't be vandal worthy" is completely strawman, and has nothing to do with this case. This case, as per the other two I just linked to, is about him spamming admin pages with bids, fully knowing that if he does not attempt to be a member of this community beforehand, he will get a vandal case. Just because he's ignored the past two warnings doesn't give you the right to storm in here and accuse us of misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:50, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- He's from Costa Rica, making him Hispanic. Misanthropy has already showed bias against Woot for being Hispanic. Making this a touchy subject when the sysops constantly go after Woot for no reason in particular. Not meeting the criteria to be a sysop shouldn't be vandal worthy since its really a matter of opinion. Simply meeting the requirements does not make someone automatically a sysop, it has more to do with opinion. It is my opinion that you're a basement dwelling, anti-social, asspie faggot who should be as far away from responsibilities as humanly possible. But my opinion doesn't matter, I'm not a sysop. YOU are a sysop, your opinion matters. When you use your opinion in a biased way you abuse your powers. If Woot is punished for trying to be a sysop so that he can clean up the wiki then I will bring miscontribution on every single sysop involved. Because this has nothing to do with rules, its about your dislike for Woot and his ethnicity. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 23:36, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- Why do you still try sonny? You used to be hilarious because you could get people to come to you and make a dick of themselves. Now you're so desperate for a reaction, every single one of your comments is just deliberate, idiotic and obvious rather than cleverly devised. --
- Unlike you, DDR, I speak with all honesty. If I have any motives I make it clear from the beginning. I have no intentions of getting Woot banned or in trouble. My intentions are to make him a sysop so that he can get rid of the rest of the faggot sysops. There's no secret here. Now put your tinfoil cap back on and go back into your hugbox. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 19:22, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- No, seriously, why are you still trying? --
- To get rid of the faggots. I thought I already said this. I apologize if I use too much big words. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 21:07, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- If you wanted to do that you could have put someone else up, or yourself. You knew woot would be put for vandalism for the third offense, and you aren't an idiot. Too scared to do the job yourself, I see. But you knew that, so I'm still expecting a proper answer. Though I think I already know it, as its been your same motive for 4 years --
- Remind me again, when did you become the Sonny Spokesman? Because I don't remember ever knowing Woot would be VandalBanned considering he isn't breaking any rules. I had a feeling you faggots would rage, but that is the point since we want to get rid of you. I have no one else I can trust with the job except maybe DCC but I know Woot better. And I don't have time to be a sysop, Woot does. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 21:08, 23 May 2010 (BST)
00:54, 23 May 2010 (BST)
- If you wanted to do that you could have put someone else up, or yourself. You knew woot would be put for vandalism for the third offense, and you aren't an idiot. Too scared to do the job yourself, I see. But you knew that, so I'm still expecting a proper answer. Though I think I already know it, as its been your same motive for 4 years --
03:40, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- To get rid of the faggots. I thought I already said this. I apologize if I use too much big words. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 21:07, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- No, seriously, why are you still trying? --
02:00, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- Unlike you, DDR, I speak with all honesty. If I have any motives I make it clear from the beginning. I have no intentions of getting Woot banned or in trouble. My intentions are to make him a sysop so that he can get rid of the rest of the faggot sysops. There's no secret here. Now put your tinfoil cap back on and go back into your hugbox. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 19:22, 21 May 2010 (BST)
Nice to see the Misconduct case was voted on by all the Ops that voted on the Vandal case (in less than 24 hours). Sysop voting Block FTW. It would be a shame to actually let the case sit long enough to give the other ops a chance to read it. Might as well vote for the permaban since the Op clique seems to be active right now. -- #99 DCC 13:17, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- QQ? Oh no, the troll haven that was 2008 UDWiki isn't here anymore. Shouldn't stop you, Sonny, Woot and other tards from coming to try to restore it to its former glory, then cry when all sysops have a common interesting in keeping you fags out of here (mistakening it as a clique). You're the clique, you're the idiots, now fuck off. -- 14:32, 20 May 2010 (BST)
- "Nice to see the Misconduct case was voted on by all the Ops that voted on the Vandal case (in less than 24 hours)." I'm sorry, but who would you prefer voted on these sorts of things? Of the nine sysops we have, six are currently active on A/VB and A/M. One of them was involved in the two cases so couldn't vote, and of the remaining five that are active here, four voiced their opinions within 24 hours. So unless you're suggesting that we bring in circus clowns to start voting on our behalf, it sounds like you're getting hot and bothered because the sysops actually did their job in a timely manner. And voting the same on open-and-shut cases does not a voting block make. Go look at something divisive and see how they voted then. —Aichon— 21:51, 20 May 2010 (BST)
For all fucking things holy, can you guys just ban him already and stop the source of all this prepubescent moaning? --
02:44, 21 May 2010 (BST)
User:VashX20
Hmmm. I was about to say that I thought Not Vandalism was a good stance at this point but having seen the link where Whesker, prior to being permabanned basically admits that his main is Vash (my interpretation), I think my choice would have been to vote vandalism (for avoiding ban, even suspected to be avoiding ban is enough to vote vandalism). --
02:17, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- And seriously, nice detective work Thad, Good work :D -- 02:17, 18 May 2010 (BST)
User:Spiderzed
- I have decided your further messages on my talk page are unwelcome. That message alone should be clear enough. They are unwelcome. End of story. I've decided that they are unwelcome based on this quotes:
- "Is NSU now going to employ its stated standards and list my group Hetzjagd auf Nazis as an enemy? Or do I have to write Sonny-style on my user page that Corny is a moron who's even incapable of enforcing his very own standards within his very own group?"
- "Sir Tintin of Tulips, my fine and prospering group Hetzjagd auf Nazis actually consists now of more then one single alt: Evidence and more evidence. I'll take you by your word."
- "Why does only my FU buddy get listed as enemy, and not me? I've done the same and PKed you once, what seems to be sufficient to get the one-man-group of his PKer alt listed as an undying nemesis of the NSU. I demand that my one-girl-group Hetzjagd auf Nazis gets immediately recognized as an nemesis as well!"
- "We don't even do guerrilla tactics. We just sit around in the open, have a coffee in Krinks' rest room, and then we decide occassionally to shoot up some NSU. I have sat inside of an unlit EHB school with just two babah zambahz in the whole green burb, and in retrospect I have to say that it felt more threatening and exciting then the whole "2nd Battle of Krinks". "2nd Battle of Krinks", you remember? Ah, yeah, of course you remember, that so-called "event" consisting of three smashed radios that Corny is so desperately trying to create such a buzz about, just to make a name for his group. (Or are it already four radios?)"
- "Why doesn't the NSU fight back? By now, FU's PKer alts in the area have killed two gnatzys, while suffering no single casualty yet. You should really know some of us now, today one has thrown Batavian out of a window in Budgen Building, while mine asked him outside to stand up so she can give him a headshot. (And she has killed Cornholioo in Krinks before that, too.) Fighting NSU is more like painting the wall, the only thing moving is oneself while the wall allows everything to happen to it."
- "I'd have a dumbwit of Cornholioo today in Krinks, and an screenshot image of Batavian in the same area from April 10th. Now if there would only be a screenshot of either of them in the time inbetween..."
Also, you have once edited the time one of my messages was placed. But I guess you have not done that deliberately so I'm not reporting you for that.
Furthermore, this isn't the first time you're posting on my talk page after I made clear your messages are unwelcome. You've done that before. That time you had posted this: "I know that I'm not welcome on your talk page, but in this case I think it's important to let you know that action has been taken: UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_04#User:Cornholioo. Maybe your own reaction will save you from a formal warning (or maybe not), but in every case that data will be purged as soon as another sys-op sees it. (Feel free to delete this comment now, it has served its purpose by alerting you.)"
I have not reported you that time. I'm neither making a second case for this, where I could. Though, it has been enough now. Since you've done it again, I am reporting you now. What you're doing is simply ignoring the message on top and then trying to justify it. That is unacceptable. --Cornholioo 21:00, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- I admit that I've posted not the nicest thinkable posts on the talk page _before_ I was deemed unwelcome. (And I can't remember to ever have changed the time in any foreign signature, so I'd welcome a pointer about that.)
- And yeah, had I posted anything like that after the warning, I'd be the first to understand why I receive a warning.
- However, after the warning, I've only done those two comments, and both have been kept informative, brief and in good faith, as they both have been purely helpful. --Spiderzed 21:20, 2 May 2010 (BST)
This time I have deleted it an hour after the post, before I filled in the arbitration. --Cornholioo 21:01, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Sorry, I don't get the relevance. If you want him to be escalated as a vandal, he has to be breaking one of the rules. Since we don't have a policy in place regarding disallowing users to post on each other's talk pages, the only way to do that is to get an arbitration ruling that he cannot post on your page. Breaking the terms of an arbitration ruling is considered to be vandalism, and we can rule on it as such at that time. Until then, these cases are frivolous. —Aichon— 21:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Ross told me to write down at the top that his messages are unwelcome and take him to vandal banning upon still posting on my talk page. --Cornholioo 23:41, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- While yes Ross did say that, there is a difference between someone nicely attempting to point something out to you for you to fix, and the pictures I spammed on your page. If you totally want them to not post on your page, then take them to an Arby and ask that they not have permission to post there, otherwise minor things that someone may post there to help you, are gonna get laughed at and thrown back in your face much like this right here. -- 23:54, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Here's what Ross said. If we take what Ross said at face value, then Spiderzed's comments were not harassment so there isn't a reason to rule vandalism. If you want a restraining order on all his comments to your page, you should take him to arbitration. —Aichon— 00:28, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm gonna be sort of honest, Ross is wrong. It's been a while but we used to have users spam other users for hours a day without getting in trouble at all. In fact, it's a shame the history purge happened because I can't show you :( but Boxy might remember... If it ain't backed up by arbies, it shouldn't be escalatable. Sorry cornhole. --
- Yeah, my original comment, which I trimmed back, mentioned that I wasn't sure about the harassment idea and would need to look into it to see if it, as it would apply here, would be a valid means for escalation. Regardless, it doesn't apply to this case, so there's nothing at all for it to stand on. —Aichon— 01:23, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- You guys are free to ignore precedents en masse anyway. We used to spam the hell out of finis, it was great, and he had too much pride to take us to arbies over it so he just wiped our comments, about 50 times a day. Ha ha --
- And also, I realise this is the second time in 2 days I've tried telling ops what is vandalism and what isn't, this isn't as black and white imo as the last one, and it would be a good idea in the long term to start escalating users for this stuff in long term harassment situations, and only for deliberate harassment, not just jumping into to conversations to offer (what should be) welcomed input. -- 01:54, 3 May 2010 (BST)
01:46, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- You guys are free to ignore precedents en masse anyway. We used to spam the hell out of finis, it was great, and he had too much pride to take us to arbies over it so he just wiped our comments, about 50 times a day. Ha ha --
01:04, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- Yeah, my original comment, which I trimmed back, mentioned that I wasn't sure about the harassment idea and would need to look into it to see if it, as it would apply here, would be a valid means for escalation. Regardless, it doesn't apply to this case, so there's nothing at all for it to stand on. —Aichon— 01:23, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm gonna be sort of honest, Ross is wrong. It's been a while but we used to have users spam other users for hours a day without getting in trouble at all. In fact, it's a shame the history purge happened because I can't show you :( but Boxy might remember... If it ain't backed up by arbies, it shouldn't be escalatable. Sorry cornhole. --
- Here's what Ross said. If we take what Ross said at face value, then Spiderzed's comments were not harassment so there isn't a reason to rule vandalism. If you want a restraining order on all his comments to your page, you should take him to arbitration. —Aichon— 00:28, 3 May 2010 (BST)
- While yes Ross did say that, there is a difference between someone nicely attempting to point something out to you for you to fix, and the pictures I spammed on your page. If you totally want them to not post on your page, then take them to an Arby and ask that they not have permission to post there, otherwise minor things that someone may post there to help you, are gonna get laughed at and thrown back in your face much like this right here. -- 23:54, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Ross told me to write down at the top that his messages are unwelcome and take him to vandal banning upon still posting on my talk page. --Cornholioo 23:41, 2 May 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo (2)
Judaism is a religion, not a race. The idea of Jews being racially different stems from anti-Semitism. Thus you, yourselves, are the ones being prejudice. Cornolioo is simply being a moron. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 04:47, 15 May 2010 (BST)
Cornhole
Is this going to close or not? --Thadeous Oakley 14:16, 9 May 2010 (BST)
- See This to find out why it hasn't been. -Poodle of DoomM! T 14:20, 9 May 2010 (BST)
- Cheese and Ross are both still active around here, so I've been leaving it open to get their feedback. Those of us that have ruled already aren't all in agreement, after all, and I prefer having a decision that's more conclusive if possible. I'll close it in another day or two if they don't rule on it. There's no particular rush to have a ruling with this case, though I can understand why people are eager to see the ruling close as it is now. —Aichon— 19:49, 9 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm in no rush,... just that I love it when you all dish out punishment.... -Poodle of DoomM! T 20:39, 9 May 2010 (BST)
- Cheese and Ross are both still active around here, so I've been leaving it open to get their feedback. Those of us that have ruled already aren't all in agreement, after all, and I prefer having a decision that's more conclusive if possible. I'll close it in another day or two if they don't rule on it. There's no particular rush to have a ruling with this case, though I can understand why people are eager to see the ruling close as it is now. —Aichon— 19:49, 9 May 2010 (BST)
You guys will be trippin' balls if you merge the two Corn cases. --
08:24, 10 May 2010 (BST)
HEHEEHEHEHEHEHE CORNHOLE ROFLROFLFOFLROFLFOORORROFL Cyberbob Talk 09:42, 10 May 2010 (BST)